Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34950783›Full record

ArticleJGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology2021

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis assessed using criteria for acute pancreatitis.

Azumi Suzuki, Koji Uno, Kojiro Nakase, Koichiro Mandai, Bunji Endoh, Koki Chikugo, Takumi Kawakami, Takahiro Suzuki, Yoshitaka Nakai, Kiyonori Kusumoto and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Azumi SuzukiDepartment of Gastroenterology Kyoto Second Red Cross Hospital Kyoto Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4493-9568
Koji UnoDepartment of Gastroenterology Kyoto Second Red Cross Hospital Kyoto Japan.
Kojiro NakaseDepartment of Gastroenterology Kyoto Second Red Cross Hospital Kyoto Japan.
Koichiro MandaiDepartment of Gastroenterology Kyoto Second Red Cross Hospital Kyoto Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3039-2303
Bunji EndohDepartment of Gastroenterology National Hospital Organization Kyoto Medical Center Kyoto Japan.
Koki ChikugoDepartment of Gastroenterology National Hospital Organization Kyoto Medical Center Kyoto Japan.
Takumi KawakamiDepartment of Gastroenterology Japanese Red Cross Kyoto Daiichi Hospital Kyoto Japan.
Takahiro SuzukiDepartment of Gastroenterology Japanese Red Cross Kyoto Daiichi Hospital Kyoto Japan.
Yoshitaka NakaiDigestive Disease Center, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Kyoto Katsura Hospital Kyoto Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1156-3960
Kiyonori KusumotoDigestive Disease Center, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Kyoto Katsura Hospital Kyoto Japan.
Yoshio ItokawaDigestive Disease Center, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Kyoto Katsura Hospital Kyoto Japan.
Osamu InatomiDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine Shiga University of Medical Science Otsu Japan.
Shigeki BambaDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine Shiga University of Medical Science Otsu Japan.
Yoshinori MizumotoDepartment of Gastroenterology National Hospital Organization Kyoto Medical Center Kyoto Japan.
Kiyohito TanakaDepartment of Gastroenterology Kyoto Second Red Cross Hospital Kyoto Japan.
Kyoto first Red Cross hospital · JPKyoto Katsura Hospital · JPKyoto Medical Center · JPShiga University of Medical Science · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimInternational consensus on the definition and classification of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) has been reached. However, the diagnosis and severity of PEP are often assessed according to the diagnostic criteria and classification for acute pancreatitis (AP). This study determined the incidence, severity, and risk factors of PEP diagnosed according to the diagnostic criteria and classification for AP in a large cohort.

methodsThis prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study conducted at five high-volume centers included 1932 patients who underwent ERCP-related procedures. The incidence, severity, and risk factors for PEP were evaluated.

resultsPEP occurred in 142 patients (7.3%); it was mild in 117 patients (6.0%) and severe in 25 patients (1.3%). According to the Cotton criteria, PEP occurred in 87 patients (4.5%); it was mild in 54 patients (2.8%), moderate in 20 patients (1.0%), and severe in 13 patients (0.7%). In the multivariate analysis, female sex (odds ratio [OR] 2.239; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.546-3.243), naïve papilla (OR 3.047; 95% CI 1.803-5.150), surgically-altered gastrointestinal anatomy (OR 2.538; 95% CI 1.342-4.802), procedure time after reaching the papilla (OR 1.009; 95% CI 1.001-1.017), pancreatic duct injection (OR 2.396; 95% CI 1.565-3.669), and intraductal ultrasonography (OR 1.641; 95% CI 1.024-2.629) were independent risk factors.

conclusionAccording to the diagnostic criteria and classification for AP, the incidence of PEP was higher than that according to the Cotton criteria and the severity of PEP tended to be severe.

Indexed as

acute pancreatitiscohort studiesendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyintraductal ultrasonographypost‐endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Identifiers

PMID34950783
PMCPMC8674548
OpenAlexW4200255284

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.